Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 4 reviews in total 

10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Good show!

Author: Movie Nuttball from U.S.A.
1 October 2004

This show is really a great show in My opinion. It shows reenactments and the real thing. Its on the Discovery Channel every week. Some of the cases are graphic because these things really happened and are not made up. I would not recommend a young child to watch this program without the guidance of a parent. The show gives the viewer the knowledge of how the Detectives, Police Officers, and F.B.I. agents do their work that is not as easy as you would think. The show is an excellent program to watch for people who love to see real crimes getting solved and killers getting jailed. If you like to see real crimes getting solved then I strongly recommend that you check out the Discovery Channel and watch this show today!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Nice Show

Author: BrohmaBull007 from United States
11 February 2006

When I was younger and this show was just starting I remember watching it the first time. I was a little freaked out by it but it is a good show. I used to watch it every Tuesday Night with my family on the Discovery Channel and I loved how the re-enactments were so precise. Its a cooler version of AMW. It basically takes America's Most Wanted and adds forensics science and autopsies. This show really uncovers its clues from the body of the victim or the examination of the crime scene and the case sort of builds up from there. This show is also great because most of the cases shown....... about 95% Id say end happily or are solved. In fact I've only seen 2 cases that went unsolved. IMO This is how all crime shows or basically all crimes should focus on. The victim and the crime scene can do so much to solving a case. The narrator is gripping in delivering the spooky elements of these crimes. I also like how these are real crimes and real investigations which adds to the spooky vibe. I would pick this show over AMW to get some crime investigations. I'll keep tuning in.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

from the people who brought you The F.B.I. Files

Author: disdressed12 from Canada
20 March 2009

from the same people who brought you The F.B.I. Files comes this series about the high tech aspects of solving crime(such as the use of DNA and fingerprinting)as well as forensic anthropology and psychological profiling.for me,this series is much slower than the F.BI. Files and less interesting.it is much more dramatic,with less action.and i found it much darker in tone than the F:B:I: Files.it gets more in depth into the science of crime detection,and less on the crime itself.i found this aspect a bit dry at times.still, it is well made and at times compelling.certainly if you're into the scientific aspect of crime and crime solving,you should check this series out.in North America,seasons 1&2 are available as one collection.for me,The Detectives is a 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Watch for the entertainment value; don't rely on its statements of the law

Author: Morganalee from United States
9 August 2006

I was watching one of the typical installments this weekend (spouse dies of "accidental poisoning" and it's clear from the first minute of narration that it's murder and that the surviving spouse did the killing), when I heard a remarkable statement: "In Maryland, convictions may be had on circumstantial evidence, but Florida requires irrefutable scientific proof." Hogwash. Every state permits conviction of the direst crimes, including murder, on circumstantial evidence--and why not? Circumstantial evidence includes everything except eyewitness testimony--and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Fingerprint evidence, fiber evidence, DNA evidence--all are highly reliable, though not "irrefutable," and all are circumstantial.

Why did the narrator intone that Florida requires "irrefutable scientific proof"? Because in the case under discussion, a trial judge (and trial-level decisions do not set precedent) refused to allow into evidence a report that potassium had been found in the victim's body. The judge refused to allow the report into evidence because potassium is found naturally in the human body, and the report did not show that the amount found in the victim was so abnormal as to be indicative of poisoning. The report, therefore, proved nothing, and should not have been admitted in any state--not because it wasn't "irrefutable," but because it didn't provide any evidence that there had been a murder.

Florida doesn't require "irrefutable" scientific evidence, and neither does any other state, because there is no such thing (think of the O.J. Simpson case). There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that cannot be refuted. Florida's busy death row includes many a murderer convicted on circumstantial evidence alone--be it scientific or not (and it need not be scientific).

So don't head for Florida if you plan to dispose of your spouse. And don't take weighty statements of the law on The New Detectives at face value. You're likely to get burned. Enjoy it for its formulaic, murder-will-out expositions only. It's all been done before, and done at least this well.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history